 "History is always written by the victors" | 2009-09-03 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2RSVS7ITR88G3 |
This was a fascinating read by Josephine Tey. It is the story of Alan Grant, a policeman with Scotland Yard, who is laid up in the hospital after being injured on the job. A friend brings in a portrait of Richard III and he has a hard time believing that the man in the picture is the horrible, nephew murdering hunchback that he is familiar with. This sparks his interest and to relieve his boredom he takes up the 400+ year old case of Richard III - did he or did he not murder his nephews in the Tower? He and an American researcher working in the British Museum sort through all the evidence they can get and look at the case through a policeman's perspective - considering motives, opportunities, written accounts from the times, looking for breaks in the normal routine of the main players, etc. Grant becomes convinced that, based on the evidence, that Richard did not murder his nephews. In fact, he had absolutely nothing to gain and quite a bit to loose if he did.
It should be mentioned that Tey is writing a work of fiction here so I'm sure some things that didn't fit into her story were most likely left out. But that aside, it is an intriguing look at a man who history has made out to be a horrible monster. One of the points Grant realizes (and probably the biggest) is that, basically, history is written by the victors. Anything that might make them, the victors, look bad is going to be changed and anything that can discredit the vanquished will be trumped up as much as possible.
Some of the evidence/points that Grant comes across:
1. The accepted history of Richard III was written by Thomas More who was about 8 when Richard was killed AND he was writing for a Tudor King. He certainly wasn't going to publish anything that would make Henry VIII's father look bad. Also, a lot of his information apparently came from a certain John Morton, who hated Richard. (It should be noted that Shakespeare used More's account of Richard's life when writing his play Richard III, which most people today base their idea of Richard on.)
2. Richard had declared all of Edward's children illegitimate but there were still several heirs in line ahead of him and they continued to live happy lives during his reign. No reason to do away with just two of the heirs between him and the throne and leave all the others.
3. When Henry VII was having all of Richard's crimes laid out never once was the murder of the Princes mentioned. He wasn't even accused of it.
4. After Richard took the throne, Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary, her daughters went to Richard's court, and she wrote to one of her Grey sons in France to come home because Richard would be kind to him. Would she have done this if she thought Richard killed her sons?
5. Henry VII, to bolster his claim to the throne after killing Richard, married Elizabeth of York, the sister of the Princes in the Tower. To make her claim to the throne valid, he had to make her (and ALL her siblings) legitimate. Once he did that, her brother was the rightful King again.
These are just a few of the points Grant considers when he finally comes to his verdict at the end. Some of the information Tey puts into her story certainly will make you think about what you accept as history, especially in a case such as Richard's. I do wish the story had been longer and more detail given about some of the evidence presented but I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Richard III. |
| |
 "Richard III as a mystery story" | 2009-07-14 |
| - Reviewed By User: AQQLWCMRNDFGI |
Many years ago, a friend of mine who was interested in English history (she now writes mystery novels from the Medieval Era), suggested that I read a book on Richard III. I did so and found my prejudices against that monarch begin to fall away as I considered the evidence rather than what had been transmitted to readers.
This is that book, Josephine Tey's historical mystery as to who killed the two young sons of Edward IV. The plot is very simple. London police officer Alan Grant is in a hospital for an injury related to his work. While lying in bed, bored, he receives some pictures from an actress friend. One of these is a rendering of Richard III. He finds the image transfixing and decides that he wants to learn more about that monarch. With a young researcher, he sets out to solve the mystery of who murdered the young children. By the way, keep the genealogy on pages 8-9 available at all times. It's hard to know the players without this handy listing of who begat whom and who married whom.
Grant, with his young partner, gathers secondary and primary information. Grant, as a result, comes to think that Richard had gotten a bad rap, that he was--in fact--a good brother to Edward IV, a good administrator, a brave and capable military leader, and a person who was willing to forgive his adversaries (much to his regret as events turned out). A curious sort of person to order the death of his nephews. At any rate, some historical figures take a beating in this book. As soon as I read the phrase that the two sleuths used for Thomas More, "the sainted More," I knew that this was the book I had written long ago. I recall bon mots with my friend over that phrase after she had convinced me to read this volume.
In the end, Grant uses his detective's mind set to determine who the murderer (or he who ordered the murders) was. His logic makes a certain degree of sense, although others would disagree. Nonetheless, this is a fascinating book, written over a half century ago. It still reads well and moves along quickly.
|
| |
 "Bored to tears" | 2009-06-12 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1BC5DVEZ2ES53 |
| This book has to be the worst book.... other than Shakespeare.... that i have ever read in my high school career. It goes on and on about a murder that really doesn't matter and the guy doesn't even get out of bed. |
| |
| "Unforgettable real-life mystery for fans of history & mysteries" | 2009-04-18 |
| - Reviewed By gilly8 |
| Josephine Tey was once a well known British writer of mysteries. I'm afraid she is now mostly forgotten---except for the classic "Daughter of Time." If you like history, if you like true life mysteries, or children-in-peril stories, in fact if you are a Shakespeare fan or a Tudor era afficiando or any of the above, you'll want to read this slim book. Written in 1951, close to the author's death, the language, and the descriptions of clothes, cars, and the way of life of the two "modern" young characters strikes one as dated and quaint, but somehow quite appropriate for this story. An injured Scotland Yard inspector is in hospital with a severe leg injury---shades of Patterson's Alex Cross!---so his young female friend has to be his legs, eyes, and researcher, and they become involved in a "cold case" 470 years old. The mystery is: who killed, or, made to disappear forever, the two young princes who were legitimage heirs to the British throne during the bloody "War of the Roses". Supposedly for their safety the boys,aged 12 and 10 were put into the Tower of London, which was not simply a jail, but also a royal residence at that time. In the case of the young boys, at the culmination of the horrifically violent War of the Roses, which destroyed many of the oldest noble houses of England, the mother of the young princes is said to have asked their uncle, Richard III to bring them back to her. Their father the king was dead: Richard III was their guardian. At that time, so it said, he told her he didn't know where they were. There was no proof of anything, and no bodies. For the next five centuries, down to the present, Richard III has been blamed for the deaths, probably mostly due to the play of Shakespeare: "Richard III", written under the auspices of the Tudor monarachy. The sister of the dead boys, Elizabeth of York, was married to the surviving male prince of the opposing side in the war,Henry Tudor, beginning the Tudor dynasty. Richard III who did wantto rule, was killed in battle. He was villified for the deaths of the innocent children. The "traditional" view of this can be read in Allison Weir's "The Princes in the Tower", based on the (mostly Tudor) records of the time, which blames Richard III. In Tey's book, the two young people are able to do research and find enough suspicious material that they doubt the story they have always been taught, and come to believe Richard III was innocent. In fact, there are quite a few legitimate historians who do feel Richard III was scapegoated by the Tudors who did not want two boys who were legitimate heirs alive to claim the throne after the war was over. Tey knew of this argument,and put the words into the mouths of her characters. (Centuries later the skeletons of two male children were found under the stairs in an old part of the tower of London. |
| |
| "Brilliant, Riveting" | 2009-04-04 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3CHUMF6LW6TSK |
| Anyone who loves a read about Tudor and Elizabethan times will not be able to put this book down. In it a 20th Century British detective laid up in the hospital solves the mystery of the disappearance of the Little Princes in the Tower. These were the two little boys, sons of the late King Edward IV, who were taken to the Tower of London for "safekeeping," and never came out again. [And whose bodies were found hundreds of years later buried under a staircase in the Tower.] In the end the policeman comes up with the biggest expose in English history. And there is a twist on top of that. Irresistible. |
| |
| "Condemned Without Evidence" | 2009-04-01 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1HEBYU2W8T2YJ |
| An illuminating prospective on history's creating a monster out of a King Richard III unjustly, and the denial of existing evidence that has proved contrary. |
| |
Expedited Available
